Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 59 of 97 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 885 of 1441
  1. #871
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,104
    vCash
    1500
    I guess I have to admit I was half wrong. I didn't think they would sign someone like Jackson at the start of the off season. I honestly thought they were content losing another 100. On the other hand I think I'm half right because I didn't think tanking was the best way to go and it looks like they see it the same way.

    Honestly I think people on here were content losing another 100. There were also a lot of people that didn't want this team to spend any money

  2. #872
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by hrubes20 View Post
    I've stayed out of this whole debate, but isn't the Jackson signing evidence that neither side was right? The Cubs did spend some money on Jackson, so obviously the plan wasn't to just sit on all the money and tank a year, but they also did not sign Hamilton, Greinke, Sanchez, Upton, Bourn (although it's a slight possibility), Swisher, Victorino, Napoli, Pagan, etc, which tells me that they still don't think it's "the right time".
    Yeah, those of us that were saying not to do 'long term deals to guys over 30' were not talking about this kind of deal.

    The Edwin Jackson signing is fine for the Cubs. They don't forfeit a draft pick, it isn't a ridiculous number of years, it's for a durable guy throughout his prime.

    This is not the kind of signing people were referring to when they said the Cubs shouldn't blow things up in free agency.

    This signing was perfectly fine. There isn't anything wrong with it.

    You can't really debate philosophy with people if they never take the time to learn what the philosophy actually is that you are describing.

    If you think this goes against the rebuilding philosophy, then you don't understand the philosophy in the first place.

  3. #873
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,657
    vCash
    1500
    The margins on the "other side" of the argument are being pushed up...Ah well. Goes to show how small the gap in opinion was, and how it all came down the scheduling...Which is why I am ecstatic about this "zomg we need 2014's top pick as well(!)" being laid to rest.

  4. #874
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    If this is what the rebuilders wanted all along (which seems a bit revisionist to me, but I didn't exactly keep notes on each individual's exact opinions so I'll have to take their word for it), then I guess the question is why didn't we have any of this last offseason?

  5. #875
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    The margins on the "other side" of the argument are being pushed up...Ah well. Goes to show how small the gap in opinion was, and how it all came down the scheduling...Which is why I am ecstatic about this "zomg we need 2014's top pick as well(!)" being laid to rest.
    No. No margins are being pushed anywhere.

    You never understood the argument, and never cared to try. You just insulted it.

    This isn't B.J. Upton and the forfeiture of a draft pick. This is a reasonable dollar figure over 4 years for a mid to back rotation starter for the rest of his prime years. It could be a little high on the dollar amount, but that doesn't really matter. It's a fine signing because it doesn't break any of the philosophy ideals that were being discussed previously.

    There would be no reason to 'back down' or to 'push up' the margins. What point would there be to concede anything at this point? If it went against the philosophy that was being discussed previously, then people would be against it as it happened. This doesn't do that, at all.

  6. #876
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    If this is what the rebuilders wanted all along (which seems a bit revisionist to me, but I didn't exactly keep notes on each individual's exact opinions so I'll have to take their word for it), then I guess the question is why didn't we have any of this last offseason?
    Well there are a few things.

    1. Who would you have signed? Jackson fits because the dollar amount isn't high, it covers peak years, is relatively short 3-4 years, and he is young enough that he can be a positive factor for a few years. He also isn't going to block anybody because he is a starter.

    2. Your team didn't have the same young core coming along. While the Cubs are very unlikely to compete in 2013, the were certainly not going to compete in 2012. Rizzo and Shark joining the group is a nice sign.

    3. You still had a lot of bad dollars out there. Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd for example. You needed to get rid of those guys first before you started to assemble a new team. That way you could maximize the return and not worry about what position guys played. But instead, just get whatever you could.

    4. fwiw, I was more against Sanchez than I am for Jackson. Sanchez is a little better than Jackson, but that 5th year isn't pretty, and it was more AAV. I like the Cubs signing Jackson more than if they had sign Sanchez.



    The issue that most had were if the Cubs tried to sign a Michael Bourn, Josh Hamilton, Zach Greinke, B.J. Upton etc. Guys that not only cost a draft pick, but will require 5 years at least and top dollars.
    Last edited by Jeffy25; 12-20-2012 at 10:18 PM.

  7. #877
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,341
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    If this is what the rebuilders wanted all along (which seems a bit revisionist to me, but I didn't exactly keep notes on each individual's exact opinions so I'll have to take their word for it), then I guess the question is why didn't we have any of this last offseason?
    Quote Originally Posted by ZamboniCub View Post
    the goal is to get to the place where you can spend and have a strong pipeline.
    i feel like last year was all about getting rid of unwanted contracts, building farm, and evaluating talent.
    this offseason has hardly started, so far ive seen them actively persue, outside of upton, the people i would want them to persue to make 2013 competitive. sure nothing big has happend yet but all indications are that 2013 will not be a 100 loss season.
    hate to quote myself. i think thats why... evaluation time. i think mainly i argued you early about talent lvls when theo and co. took over.

    even still, really nothing BIG has happened and 2013 isnt a "Tank" year pending the rest of this offseason.

  8. #878
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,104
    vCash
    1500
    Dempster is bad money?

    They had 1 bad deal (Zambrano). They had the money to do whatever they wanted. They just chose not to. Money wasn't really the issue.

    Jeffy- I would have no problem giving up a second round pick for any of the guys you mentioned. Plus much like Jackson they wouldn't have blocked anyone. Well we don't know what Bourn will sign for yet, but none of those other deals would have made me flinch. I don't think those deals would have crippled the franchise.

  9. #879
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,543
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    If this is what the rebuilders wanted all along (which seems a bit revisionist to me, but I didn't exactly keep notes on each individual's exact opinions so I'll have to take their word for it), then I guess the question is why didn't we have any of this last offseason?
    Although you're likely to post the participation award pic here with this response, it still goes back to we were in on Darvish and Cespedes, just didn't land them. I can't think of anyone else I really wanted.

  10. #880
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Mell413 View Post
    Dempster is bad money?

    They had 1 bad deal (Zambrano). They had the money to do whatever they wanted. They just chose not to. Money wasn't really the issue.

    Jeffy- I would have no problem giving up a second round pick for any of the guys you mentioned. Plus much like Jackson they wouldn't have blocked anyone. Well we don't know what Bourn will sign for yet, but none of those other deals would have made me flinch. I don't think those deals would have crippled the franchise.
    Those types of deals, are much like what the Soriano deal was like. Which in of itself doesn't cripple anything. But then it's surrounded with several deals that are similar to compliment that player with successful players.


    You are far better off allowing the best players on your organization be built from a strong farm system that graduates them. That second round pick could certainly help that pipeline. These players are not only your best players usually, but are also the least paid. This gives you payroll flexibility and the ability to add other pieces.

    It's best to add those kinds of players when you have a strong team that has a strong core and then you are paying these high salaries and surrounding a good young team with great complimentary players.

    It's best to use free agency as a source to complete your team, and never a place to assemble your team. The Cubs had a lot of holes. Signing Josh Hamilton to 5/125 to be on a last place team just doesn't make sense. By the time the team is competitive, Hamilton will be at his maximum pay and in his worst years. Best to be able to sign a new free agent at that time with those dollars, instead of committing to Hamilton now.


    Basically, Baez, Castro, Rizzo, etc make a good core. In a few years (like say 2015) these guys have developed into good strong core players, with a few additional pieces that you hopefully develop as well, then you can add the expensive free agents with all the free salary. If you go out and add guys like Hamilton now, then you are limiting the free agents you can sign in a few years when the team has the core to build around.

    Right now, the Cubs are just too far away. You need a lot of pieces. Edwin Jackson is a good piece because the commitment is low, the years are good, and he is a good, young piece who leaves at the end of his prime and he doesn't cost you any draft picks. I personally wouldn't have signed him. But it's a fine signing overall.

  11. #881
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,657
    vCash
    1500
    As far as the second round pick....The difference between the slow value of the #2 pick last year and the #6 pick last year was almost 3 million dollars. I think it could be argued that that is enough to cover a second round pick loss, especially given that a 2nd round has only the most minute chance at making your draft when you pick #2 overall. This is especially true if they go the Astros' route and take the cheapest guy with a reasonable argument for going #2 overall on talent.

    This draft is about the #2 pick for the Cubs, not their second rounder...

    Mell - no, Dempster was not bad money.

  12. #882
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,104
    vCash
    1500
    I know the importance of building the farm. They did ok there. The problem is that the guys we are counting on to be part of the core are so far away you can't count on them. That's even assuming they work out. I think the Dodgers (obviously I'm not expecting them to spend that much) and Red Sox have the right idea. Be competitive in the short term, but not jeopardize the future. Playing guys like Ian Stewart and Steve Clevenger while you're waiting for guys like Baez to maybe make the majors isn't the best way to get closer to a WS.

    If we were under the rules of the old CBA I wouldn't have had as much of a problem taking money off the major league payroll and using that toward over slot picks or whatever. You can't do that anymore. I don't have the patience to watch players that don't matter right now and hope that the kids workout
    Last edited by Mell413; 12-20-2012 at 10:42 PM.

  13. #883
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    This draft is about the #2 pick for the Cubs, not their second rounder...
    This draft is about every player in your draft. Not just one pick. Every pick. Your best player out of this draft could be a 22nd rounder. We don't know yet. But every pick is important. The second overall pick is the most important, then the second round pick the second most important, and so on. But overall, you want as many valuable pieces in the draft as possible.


    And part of why Correa was taken first overall last year was because the Astros had a supplemental pick where they could take a larger bonus guy (which they did - McCullers). Correa saved them a lot of draft bonus money for later higher demand players that would fall, which they were aggressive with.

  14. #884
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,073
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Mell413 View Post
    I know the importance of building the farm. They did ok there. The problem is that the guys we are counting on to be part of the core are so far away you can't count on them. That's even assuming they work out. I think the Dodgers (obviously I'm not expecting them to spend that much) and Red Sox have the right idea. Be competitive in the short term, but not jeopardize the future. Playing guys like Ian Stewart and Steve Clevenger while you're waiting for guys like Baez to maybe make the majors isn't the best way to get closer to a WS.

    If we were under the rules of the old CBA I wouldn't have had as much of a problem taking money off the major league payroll and using that toward over slot picks or whatever. You can't do that anymore. I don't have the patience to watch players that don't matter right now and hope that the kids workout
    To your latter part, absolutely. It was more important than to spend your resources on IFA's and draft bonuses. But to your first part. It's important to remember that your farm system is a non-stop building process. It's important to forever work hard on producing the best talent from your farm. That should be every teams first focus. A strong farm gives a team years and years of success. Basically, my point is that you have to always, constantly, be focused on assembling the best farm system that you can.

    Edwin Jackson doesn't harm your farm system in any way, and he doesn't jeopardize it in any way.

    He also isn't signed for post prime years or for pay over his value. Helps make the signing more justifiable.

  15. #885
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,657
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    This draft is about every player in your draft. Not just one pick. Every pick. Your best player out of this draft could be a 22nd rounder. We don't know yet. But every pick is important. The second overall pick is the most important, then the second round pick the second most important, and so on. But overall, you want as many valuable pieces in the draft as possible.


    And part of why Correa was taken first overall last year was because the Astros had a supplemental pick where they could take a larger bonus guy (which they did - McCullers). Correa saved them a lot of draft bonus money for later higher demand players that would fall, which they were aggressive with.
    While that POV is cute and naive all in one, clearly the best place in the draft to get an impact talent - ANY draft but in this case the MLB - is the tippy top of the draft.

    I've shown you this before and we've done this before:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...aft-using-war/

    First Round
    College hitters-- 1.336 WAR/year
    High School hitters-- 1.204 WAR/year
    College pitchers-- .649 WAR/year
    High School pitchers-- .878 WAR/year

    Second Round
    College hitters-- .773 WAR/year
    High School hitters-- .672 WAR/year
    College pitchers-- .087 WAR/year
    High School pitchers-- .084 WAR/year
    Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
    1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
    11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
    21-30-- .353 WAR/year
    There is a drastic drop in performance between picks 11-20 and 21-30. The difference between the top 10 and 11-20 is not nearly as large. What does this mean? There is likely a general consensus of the top 20 or so prospects each year. After this however, the talent quickly becomes more diluted and it becomes increasingly tougher to find players who might contribute in the major leagues.
    http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...raft_and_w.php

    http://baseballanalysts.com/wardraft1.gif

    http://baseballanalysts.com/wardraft9.gif

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the following things can be said:

    1) The first few draft picks are worth vastly more than later picks - a fact that is becoming more and more true as time goes by.
    And part of why Correa was taken first overall last year was because the Astros had a supplemental pick where they could take a larger bonus guy (which they did - McCullers). Correa saved them a lot of draft bonus money for later higher demand players that would fall, which they were aggressive with.
    Cubs and Twins managed to hand out multiple million+ overslots (3 apiece IIRC) despite overslotting their top pick. The Astros failed to sign arguably their third best pick, Virant, despite all that was saved. I also did not state anything in that post that displayed me needing this explained, it's been parroted a million times on the internet - I suggested it as one possible route the Cubs could take.
    Last edited by SenorGato; 12-20-2012 at 10:59 PM.

Page 59 of 97 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •